I. Calvin’s Commentaries on the Old
Test. in Opera, vols. XXIII.–XLIV., on the New Test.,
vols. XLV. sqq. (not yet completed). Separate Latin ed. of the
Commentaries on the New Test. by Tholuck, Berlin, and Halle, 1831,
1836, etc., 7 vols.; also on Genesis (by Hengstenberg, Berlin, 1838)
and on the Psalms (by Tholuck, 1836, 2 vols.). Translations in French
(by J. Girard, 1650, and others), English (by various writers, 1570
sqq.), and other languages. Best English ed. by the "Calvin Translation
Soc.," Edinburgh, 1843–55 (30 vols. for the O. T., 13
for the N. T.). See list in Darling’s Cyclopaedia
Bibliographica, sub "Calvin."

Calvin was an exegetical genius of the first order.
His commentaries are unsurpassed for originality, depth, perspicuity,
soundness, and permanent value. The Reformation period was fruitful
beyond any other in translations and expositions of the Scripture. If
Luther was the king of translators, Calvin was the king of
commentators. Poole, in the preface to his Synopsis, apologizes for not
referring more frequently to Calvin, because others had so largely
borrowed from him that to quote them was to quote him. Reuss, the chief
editor of his works and himself an eminent biblical scholar, says that
Calvin was, beyond all question the greatest exegete of the sixteenth
century."779779 "Ohne alle Frage der groesste Exeget
des (sechszehnten) Jahrhunderts." Geschichte der heil. Schriften des Neuen
Test. p. 618 (6th ed.
1887). Archdeacon Farrar
literally echoes this judgment.780780 "The greatest exegete
and theologian of the Reformation was undoubtedly Calvin." History
of Interpretation, London, 1886, p. 342. Farrar quotes from Keble a
manuscript note of Hooker, who says that "the sense of Scripture which
Calvin alloweth" was held (in the Anglican Church) to be of more force
than if "ten thousand Augustins, Jeromes, Chrysostoms, Cyprians were
brought forth." Diestel, the best historian of Old Testament
exegesis, calls him "the creator of genuine exegesis."781781 "Der Schoepfer der aechten
Exegese." Diestel adds:
"Johannes Calvin ragt
ebensowohl durch den Umfang seiner exegetischen Arbeiten wie durch eine
seltene Genialitat in der Auslegung hervor; unuebertroffen in seinem
Jahrhundert, bieten seine Exegesen fuer alle folgenden Zeiten noch bis
heute einen reichen Stoff der Schriftkenntniss
dar." Geschichte des Alten Testaments in der
christl. Kirche, Jena, 1869, p.
267. Dr. A. Merx of Heidelberg, another master in biblical philology,
fully agrees: "Calvin ist
der groesste Exeget seiner Zeit ... der Schoepfer der aechten
Exegese" (on Joel, p. 428), and he
ascribes to him, besides the necessary learning, including Hebrew, the
sagacity of understanding and explaining the whole from the parts, and
the parts from the whole. Few exegetical works outlive their
generation; those of Calvin are not likely to be superseded any more
than Chrysostom’s Homilies for patristic eloquence, or
Bengel’s Gnomon for pregnant and stimulating hints, or
Matthew Henry’s Exposition for devotional purposes and
epigrammatic suggestions to preachers.782782 G. Wohlenberg, a
Lutheran divine, begins a notice of the new edition of
Calvin’s Commentaries on the New Test. (in
Luthardt’s, Theol. Lit.-blatt," Oct. 9, 1891) with
this remark: "Calvin’s Commentare zum N. T. gehoeren zu den nie
veraltenden Werken. Und so gut wie Bengel’s
’Gnomon’ immer wieder gedruckt und
gelesen werden wird, so lange es eine gesunde und fromme
Schrifterklaerung giebt, so werden auch Calvin’s
Commentare nie vergessen werden."

Calvin began his series of Commentaries at
Strassburg with the Epistle to the Romans, on which his system of
theology is chiefly built. In the dedication to his friend and Hebrew
teacher Grynaeus, at Basel (Oct. 18, 1539), he already lays down his
views of the best method of interpretation, namely, comprehensive
brevity, transparent clearness, and strict adherence to the spirit and
letter of the author. He gradually expounded the most important books
of the Old Testament, the Pentateuch, the Psalms, and the Prophets, and
all the books of the New Testament, with the exception of the
Apocalypse, which he wisely left alone. Some of his expositions, as the
Commentary on the Minor Prophets, were published from notes of his
free, extempore lectures and sermons. His last literary work was a
Commentary on Joshua, which he began in great bodily infirmity and
finished shortly before his death and entrance into the promised
land.

It was his delight to expound the Word of God from
the chair and from the pulpit. Hence his theology is biblical rather
than scholastic. The Commentaries on the Psalms and the Epistles of
Paul are regarded as his best. He was in profound sympathy with David
and Paul, and read in their history his own spiritual biography. He
calls the Psalms (in the Preface) "an anatomy of all the parts of the
soul; for there is not an emotion of which any one can be conscious
that is not here represented as in a mirror. Or, rather, the Holy
Spirit has here drawn to the life the griefs, the sorrows, the fears,
the doubts, the hopes, the cares, the perplexities, in short, all the
distracting emotions with which the minds of men are wont to be
agitated." He adds that his own trials and conflicts helped him much to
a clearer understanding of these divine compositions.

He combined in a very rare degree all the
essential qualifications of an exegete—grammatical
knowledge, spiritual insight, acute perception, sound judgment, and
practical tact. He thoroughly sympathized with the spirit of the Bible;
he put himself into the situation of the writers, and reproduced and
adapted their thoughts for the benefit of his age.

Tholuck mentions as the most prominent qualities
of Calvin’s commentaries these four: doctrinal
impartiality, exegetical tact, various learning, and deep Christian
piety. Winer praises his "truly wonderful sagacity in perceiving, and
perspicuity in expounding, the meaning of the Apostle."783783 "Calvinus miram in
pervidenda apostoli mente subtilitatem, in exponenda prespicuitatem
probavit." In the third ed. of his Com. on the Ep. to the
Galatians.

1. Let us first look at his philological outfit.
Melanchthon well says: "The Scripture cannot be understood
theologically unless it be first understood grammatically."784784 "Ignavus in
grammatica est ignavus in theologia." Postill. IV.
428. He had passed through the school
of the Renaissance; he had a rare knowledge of Greek; he thought in
Greek, and could not help inserting rare Greek words into his letters
to learned friends. He was an invaluable help to Luther in his
translation of the Bible, but his commentaries are dogmatical rather
than grammatical, and very meagre, as compared with those of Luther and
Calvin in depth and force.785785 Calvin himself fully
acknowledged the exegetical merits of Melanchthon, Bullinger, and
Bucer, in their commentaries on Romans, but modestly hints at their
defects to justify his own commentary, which is far superior. See his
interesting dedication to Grynaeus, written in 1539.

Luther surpassed all other Reformers in
originality, freshness, spiritual insight, bold conjectures, and
occasional flashes of genius. His commentary on the Epistle to the
Galatians, which he called "his wife," is a masterpiece of sympathetic
exposition and forceful application of the leading idea of evangelical
freedom to the question of his age. But Luther was no exegete in the
proper sense of the term. He had no method and discipline. He condemned
allegorizing as a mere "monkey-game" (Affenspiel), and yet he often
resorted to it in Job, the Psalms, and the Canticles. He was eminently
spiritual, and yet, as against Zwingli, slavishly literal in his
interpretation. He seldom sticks to the text, but uses it only as a
starting-point for popular sermons, or polemical excursions against
papists and sectarians. He cared nothing for the consensus of the
fathers. He applied private judgment to the interpretation with the
utmost freedom, and judged the canonicity and authority of the several
books of the Bible by a dogmatic and subjective
rule—his favorite doctrine of solifidian
justification; and as he could not find it in James, he irreverently
called his epistle "an epistle of straw." He anticipated modern
criticism, but his criticism proceeded from faith in Christ and
God’s Word, and not from scepticism. His best work is
a translation, and next to it, his little catechism for children.

Zwingli studied the Greek at Glarus and Einsiedeln
that he might be able, "to draw the teaching of Christ from the
fountains."786786 He wrote in 1523 that,
ten years before (when priest at Glarus), "operam dedi Graecianis
literis, ut ex fontibus doctrinam Christi haurire
possem." He learnt
Hebrew after he was called to Zuerich. He also studied the fathers,
and, like Erasmus, took more to Jerome than to Augustin. His
expositions of Scripture are clear, easy, and natural, but somewhat
superficial. The other Swiss Reformers and
exegetes—Oecolampadius, Grynaeus, Bullinger, Pellican,
and Bibliander—had a good philological preparation.
Pellican, a self-taught scholar (d. 1556), who was called to Zuerich by
Zwingli in 1525, wrote a little Hebrew grammar even before Reuchlin,787787De Modo legendi et
intelligendi Hebraeum, written at Tuebingen or Basel in 1501, first
printed in the Margarita philosophica, at Strassburg in 1504
(one or two years before Reuchlin’s Rudimenta
Linguae Hebr.), recently discovered and republished by Nestle,
Tuebingen, 1877. and published at Zuerich
comments on the whole Bible.788788Commentaria
Bibliorum, Zuerich, 1632-39, 7 vols. See Diestel, l.c., 272
sq., and Strack in Herzog2 XI. 432 sqq. Bibliander (d. 1564) was likewise professor of
Hebrew in Zuerich, and had some acquaintance with other Semitic
languages; he was, however, an Erasmian rather than a Calvinist, and
opposed the doctrine of the absolute decrees.

For the Hebrew Bible these scholars used the
editions of Daniel Bomberg (Venice, 1518–45); the
Complutensian Polyglot, which gives, besides the Hebrew text, also the
Septuagint and Vulgate and a Hebrew vocabulary (Alcala, printed
1514–17; published 1520 sqq.); also the editions of
Sabastian Muenster (Basel, 1536), and of Robert Stephens (Etienne,
Paris, 1539–46). For the Greek Testament they had the
editions of Erasmus (Basel, five ed. 1516–35), the
Complutensian Polyglot (1520), Colinaeus (Paris, 1534), Stephens (Paris
and Geneva, 1546–51). A year after
Calvin’s death, Beza began to publish his popular
editions of the Greek Testament, with a Latin version (Geneva,
1565–1604).

Textual criticism was not yet born, and could not
begin its operations before a collection of the textual material from
manuscripts, ancient versions, and patristic quotations. In this
respect, therefore, all the commentaries of the Reformation period are
barren and useless. Literary criticism was stimulated by the Protestant
spirit of inquiry with regard to the Jewish Apocrypha and some
Antilegomena of the New Testament, but was soon repressed by
dogmatism.

Calvin, besides being a master of Latin and
French, had a very good knowledge of the languages of the Bible. He had
learned the Greek from Volmar at Bourges, the Hebrew from Grynaeus
during his sojourn at Basel, and he industriously continued the study
of both.789789 His knowledge of Hebrew
was unjustly depreciated by the Roman Catholic Richard Simon. But Dr.
Diestel, a most competent judge, ascribes to Calvin "a very solid
knowledge of Hebrew." See above, p. 276, and p. 525. Tholuck, also, in
his essay above quoted, asserts that "every glance at
Calvin’s Commentary on the Old Testament assures us
not only that he understood Hebrew, but that he had a very thorough
knowledge of this language." He mentions, by way of illustration, a
number of difficult Hebrew and Greek words which Calvin correctly
explains. He denies that he was dependent on
Pellican’s notes, as Semler had gratuitously
suggested. He was at home in
classical antiquity; his first book was a Commentary on Seneca, De
Clementia, and he refers occasionally to Plato, Aristotle, Plutarch,
Polybius, Cicero, Seneca, Virgil, Horace, Ovid, Terence, Livy, Pliny,
Quintilian, Diogenes Laërtius, Aulus Gellius, etc. He
inferred from Paul’s quotation of Epimenides, Tit. 1:12, "that those are superstitious who
never venture to quote anything from profane authors. Since all truth
is from God, if anything has been said aptly and truly even by impious
men, it ought not to be rejected, because it proceeded from God. And
since all things are of God, why is it not lawful to turn to his glory
whatever may be aptly applied to this use?" On 1 Cor. 8:1, he observes: "Science is no more
to be blamed when it puffs up than a sword when it falls into the hands
of a madman." But he never makes a display of learning, and uses it
only as a means to get at the sense of the Scripture. He wrote for
educated laymen as well as for scholars, and abstained from minute
investigations and criticisms; but he encouraged Beza to publish his
Commentary on the New Testament in which philological scholarship is
more conspicuous.

Calvin was also familiar with the patristic
commentators, and had much more respect for them than Luther. He fully
appreciated the philological knowledge and tact of Jerome, the
spiritual depth of Augustin, and the homiletical wealth of Chrysostom;
but he used them with independent judgment and critical
discrimination.790790 He expresses his
estimate of the Fathers in the Preface to his Institutes as
follows: "Another calumny is their charging us with opposition to the
fathers; I mean the writers of the earlier and purer ages, as if those
writers were abettors of their impiety; whereas if the contest were to
be terminated by this authority, the victory in most parts of the
controversy, to speak in the most modest terms, would be on our side.
But though the writings of those fathers contain many wise and
excellent things, yet, in some respects, they have suffered the common
fate of mankind; these very dutiful children reverence only their
errors and mistakes, but their excellences they either overlook, or
conceal, or corrupt; so that it may be truly said to be their only
study to collect dross from the midst of gold. Then they overwhelm us
with senseless clamors, as despisers and enemies of the fathers. But we
do not hold them in such contempt, but that if it were consistent with
my present design, I could easily support by their suffrages most of
the sentiments that we now maintain. Yet, while we make use of their
writings, we always remember that ’All things are
ours’ to serve us, not to have dominion over us, and
that ’we are
Christ’s’ alone, and owe him
universal obedience. He who neglects this distinction will have nothing
decided in religion, since those holy men were ignorant of many things,
frequently at variance with each other and sometimes even inconsistent
with themselves." In the preface to his commentary on the Romans he
praises the Fathers for their pietas, eruditio, and
sanctimonia, and adds that their antiquity lent them such
authority, "ut nihil quod ab ipsis profectum sit, contemnere
debeamus." Compare with this judgment Luther’s
bolder and cruder opinions on the Fathers, quoted in vol. VI. 534
sqq.

2. Calvin kept constantly in view the primary and
fundamental aim of the interpreter, namely, to bring to light the true
meaning of the biblical authors according to the laws of thought and
speech.791791 In the dedicatory
preface to his Com. on Romans he reminds his friend Grynaeus of a
conversation they had three years previously, on the best method of
interpretation, when they agreed that the chief virtue of an
interpreter was "perspicua brevitas," and adds:, Et sane quum
hoc sit prope unicum illius officium, mentem scriptores, quem
explicandum sumpsit, patefacere: quantum ab ea lectores abducit,
tantundem a scopo suo aberrat, vel certe a suis finibus quodammodo
evagatur." He transferred
himself into their mental state and environment so as to become
identified with them, and let them explain what they actually did say,
and not what they might or should have said, according to our notions
or wishes. In this genuine exegetical method he has admirably
succeeded, except in a few cases where his judgment was biassed by his
favorite dogma of a double predestination, or his antagonism to Rome;
though even there he is more moderate and fair than his contemporaries,
who indulge in diffuse and irrelevant declamations against popery and
monkery. Thus he correctly refers the "Rock" in Matt. 16:18 to the person of Peter, as the
representative of all believers.792792Harmon. II.
107. He stuck to the text. He detested irrelevant
twaddle and diffuseness. He was free from pedantry. He never evades
difficulties, but frankly meets and tries to solve them. He carefully
studies the connection. His judgment is always clear, strong, and
sound. Commentaries are usually dry, broken, and indifferently written.
His exposition is an easy, continuous flow of reproduction and
adaptation in elegant Erasmian Latinity. He could truly assert on his
death-bed that he never knowingly twisted or misinterpreted a single
passage of the Scriptures; that he always aimed at simplicity, and
restrained the temptation to display acuteness and ingenuity.

He made no complete translation of the Bible, but
gave a Latin and a French version of those parts on which he commented
in either or both languages, and he revised the French version of his
cousin, Pierre Robert Olivetan, which appeared first in 1535, for the
editions of 1545 and 1551.793793 See Reuss, Gesch. des N. T. § 474 (p. 639, 6th ed.). Reuss prepared from
Calvin’s French Commentaries a French version for his
ed. of the Opera.

3. Calvin is the founder of modern
grammatico-historical exegesis. He affirmed and carried out the sound
and fundamental hermeneutical principle that the biblical authors, like
all sensible writers, wished to convey to their readers one definite
thought in words which they could understand. A passage may have a
literal or a figurative sense, but cannot have two senses at once. The
word of God is inexhaustible and applicable to all times; but there is
a difference between explanation and application, and application must
be consistent with explanation.

Calvin departed from the allegorical method of the
Middle Ages, which discovered no less than four senses in the Bible,794794 Expressed in the
memorial lines:—Litera gesta docet; quid credas,
Allegoria;Moralis, quid agas; quo tendas,
Anagogia." turned it into a nose of wax,
and substituted pious imposition for honest exposition. He speaks of
"puerile" and "far-fetched" allegories, and says that he abstains from
them because there is nothing "solid and firm" in them. It is an almost
sacrilegious audacity to twist the Scriptures this way and that way, to
suit our fancy.795795Pref. ad Romanos:
"Affinis sacrilegio audacia est Scripturas temere huc illuc versare
et quasi in re lusoria lascivire: quod a multis jam olim factitatum
est." In
commenting on the allegory of Sarah and Hagar, Gal. 4:22–26, he censures Origen for his
arbitrary allegorizing, as if the plain historical view of the Bible
were too mean and too poor. "I acknowledge," he says, "that Scripture
is a most rich and inexhaustible fountain of all wisdom, but I deny
that its fertility consists in the various meanings which any man at
his pleasure may put into it. Let us know, then, that the true meaning
of Scripture is the natural and obvious meaning; and let us embrace and
abide by it resolutely. Let us not only neglect as doubtful, but boldly
set aside as deadly corruptions, those pretended expositions which lead
us away from the natural meaning." He approvingly quotes Chrysostom,
who says that the word "allegory" in this passage is used in an
improper sense.796796 "Et certe
Chrysostomus in vocabulo Allegoriae fatetur esse catechresin
(κατάχρησις): quod verissimum est." He was
averse to all forced attempts to harmonize difficulties. He constructed
his Harmony of the Gospels from the three Synoptists alone, and
explained John separately.

5. He prepared the way for a proper historical
understanding of prophecy. He fully believed in the Messianic
prophecies, which are the very soul of the faith and hope of Israel;
but he first perceived that they had a primary bearing and practical
application to their own times, and an ulterior fulfilment in Christ,
thus serving a present as well as a future use. He thus explained Psalms 2, 8, 16, 22, 40, 45, 68, 110, as typically and indirectly Messianic.
On the other hand, he made excessive use of typology, especially in his
Sermons, and saw not only in David but in every king of Jerusalem a,
figure of Christ." In his explanation of the protevangelium, Gen. 3:15, he correctly understands the
"seed of the woman," collectively of the human race, in its perpetual
conflict with Satan, which will culminate ultimately in the victory of
Christ, the head of the race.800800Ad Gen. 3:15
(Opera, XXIII. 71): "Generaliter semen interpreter de
posteris. Sed quum experientia doceat, multum abesse quin supra
diabolum victores emergant omnes filii Adae, ad caput unum venire
necesse est, ut reperiamus ad quem pertineat victoria. Sic Paulus a
semine Abrahae ad Christum nos deducit …. Quare sensus
est (meo judicio), humanum genus, quod opprimere conatus erat Satan,
fore tandem superius." He widens the sense of the formula "that it might
be fulfilled" (i{na plhrwqh|'), so as to
express sometimes simply an analogy or correspondence between an Old
Testament and a New Testament event. The prophecy, Hos. 11:1, quoted by Matthew as referring to
the return of the Christ-child from Egypt, must, accordingly, "not be
restricted to Christ," but is, skilfully adapted to the present
occasion."801801Harm. I. 80.
Tholuck’s ed. On Matt. 2:23 in the same chapter,
Calvin says (p. 83): "Non deducit Matthaeus Nazaraeum a Nazareth:
quasi sit haec propria et certa etymologia, sed tantum est
allusio," etc. In like manner,
Paul, in Rom. 10:6,
gives only an embellishment and adaptation of a word of Moses to the
case in hand.802802 Comp. his notes on Gen.
3:15; Isa. 4:2; 6:3; Ps. 33:6; Matt. 2:15; 8:17; 11:11; John 1:51:2:17;
5:31 sq.; 2 Cor. 12:7; 1 Pet, 3:19; Heb. 2:6-8; 4:3; 11:21.

6. He had the profoundest reverence for the
Scriptures, as containing the Word of the living God and as the only
infallible and sufficient rule of faith and duty; but he was not swayed
by a particular theory of inspiration. It is true, he never would have
approved the unguarded judgments of Luther on James, Jude, Hebrews, and
the Apocalypse;803803 See
Luther’s judgments in vol. VI. 35 sq. but he had
no hesitancy in admitting incidental errors which do not touch the
vitals of faith. He remarks on Matt. 27:9: "How the name of Jeremiah crept in, I
confess I know not, nor am I seriously troubled about it. That the name
of Jeremiah has been put for Zechariah by an error, the fact itself
shows, because there is no such statement in Jeremiah."804804Harm. II. 349
(Tholuck’s ed.): "Quomodo Jeremiae nomen
obrepserit, me nescire fateor, nec anxie laboro: certe Jeremiae nomen
errore positum esse pro Zacharia 13:7, res ipsa ostendit: quia
nihil tale apud Jeremiam legitur, vel etiam quod
accedat." Concerning the discrepancies
between the speech of Stephen in Acts 7 and the account of Genesis, he
suggests that Stephen or Luke drew upon ancient traditions rather than
upon Moses, and made "a mistake in the name of Abraham."805805Ad Acta 7:16
(Acts 7:16):, "In nomine Abrahae erratum esse palam est
… Quare hic locus corrigendus est." According to
Gen. 50:13, Abraham bought the cave of Machpelah at Hebron, and Jacob
was buried there, and not at Shechem. He was far from the pedantry of
the Purists in the seventeenth century, who asserted the classical
purity of the New Testament Greek, on the ground that the Holy Spirit
could not be guilty of any solecism or barbarism, or the slightest
violation of grammar; not remembering that the Apostles and Evangelists
carried the heavenly treasure of truth in earthen vessels, that the
power and grace of God might become more manifest, and that Paul
himself confesses his rudeness "in speech," though not "in knowledge."
Calvin justly remarks, with special reference to Paul, that by a
singular providence of God the highest mysteries were committed to us
"sub contemptibili verborum humilitate," that our faith may not rest on
the power of human eloquence, but solely on the efficacy of the divine
Spirit; and yet he fully recognized the force and fire, the majesty and
weight of Paul’s style, which he compares to flashes
of lightning.806806 See his admirable
comments on 1 Cor. 1:17 sqq., and 2 Cor. 11:6, where he mentions the
majestas, altitudo, pondus, and vis of
Paul’s words, and says: "Fulmina sunt, non verba.
An non dilucidius Spiritus Sancti efficacia apparet in nuda verborum
rusticitate (ut ita loquar) quam in elegantiae et nitoris
larva?"

7. Calvin accepted the traditional canon of the
New Testament, but exercised the freedom of the ante-Nicene Church
concerning the origin of some of the books. He denied the Pauline
authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews on account of the differences
of style and mode of teaching (ratio docendi), but admitted its
apostolic spirit and value. He doubted the genuineness of the Second
Epistle of Peter, and was disposed to ascribe it to a pupil of the
Apostle, but he saw nothing in it which is unworthy of Peter. He
prepared the way for a distinction between authorship and editorship as
to the Pentateuch and the Psalter.

He departed from the traditional view that the
Scripture rests on the authority of the Church. He based it on internal
rather than external evidence, on the authority of God rather than the
authority of men. He discusses the subject in his Institutes,808808 Bk. I. ch. VII. and
VIII. and states the case as follows:
—

"There has very generally prevailed a most
pernicious error that the Scriptures have only so much weight as is
conceded to them by the suffrages of the Church, as though the eternal
and inviolable truth of God depended on the arbitrary will of men.809809 Luther said
substantially the same thing in his controversy with Eck: "The Church
cannot give any more authority or power to the Scripture than it has of
itself. A Council cannot make that to be Scripture which is not
Scripture by its own nature." ... For, as God alone is a
sufficient witness of Himself in His own Word, so also the Word will
never gain credit in the hearts of men till it be confirmed by the
internal testimony of the Spirit. It is necessary, therefore, that the
same Spirit, who spake by the mouths of the prophets, should penetrate
into our hearts, to convince us that they faithfully delivered the
oracles which were divinely intrusted to them … Let it
be considered, then, as an undeniable truth, that they who have been
inwardly taught by the Spirit, feel an entire acquiescence in the
Scripture, and that it is self-authenticated, carrying with it its own
evidence, and ought not to be made the subject of demonstrations and
arguments from reason; but it obtains the credit which it deserves with
us by the testimony of the Spirit. For though it commands our reverence
by its internal majesty, it never seriously affects us till it is
confirmed by the Spirit in our hearts. Therefore, being illuminated by
him, we now believe the divine original of the Scripture, not from our
own judgment or that of others, but we esteem the certainty that we
have received it from God’s own mouth, by the ministry
of men, to be superior to that of any human judgment, and equal to that
of an intuitive perception of God himself in it … .
Without this certainty, better and stronger than any human judgment, in
vain will the authority of the Scripture be either defended by
arguments, or established by the authority of the Church, or confirmed
by any other support, since, unless the foundation be laid, it remains
in perpetual suspense."810810 Selected from
Inst. I. VII. §§ 1, 4, 5, and VIII.
§ 1.

This doctrine of the intrinsic merit and
self-evidencing character of the Scripture, to all who are enlightened
by the Holy Spirit, passed into the Gallican, Belgic, Second Helvetic,
Westminster, and other Reformed Confessions. They present a fuller
statement of the objective or formal principle of
Protestantism,—namely, the absolute supremacy of the
Word of God as the infallible rule of faith and practice, than the
Lutheran symbols which give prominence to the subjective or material
principle of justification by faith.811811 Comp. vol. VI. 36
sqq.

At the same time, the ecclesiastical tradition is
of great value, as a witness to the human authorship and canonicity of
the several books, and is more fully recognized by modern biblical
scholarship, in its conflict with destructive criticism, than it was in
the days of controversy with Romanism. The internal testimony of the
Holy Spirit and the external testimony of the Church join in
establishing the divine authority of the Scriptures.

780 "The greatest exegete
and theologian of the Reformation was undoubtedly Calvin." History
of Interpretation, London, 1886, p. 342. Farrar quotes from Keble a
manuscript note of Hooker, who says that "the sense of Scripture which
Calvin alloweth" was held (in the Anglican Church) to be of more force
than if "ten thousand Augustins, Jeromes, Chrysostoms, Cyprians were
brought forth."

785 Calvin himself fully
acknowledged the exegetical merits of Melanchthon, Bullinger, and
Bucer, in their commentaries on Romans, but modestly hints at their
defects to justify his own commentary, which is far superior. See his
interesting dedication to Grynaeus, written in 1539.

787De Modo legendi et
intelligendi Hebraeum, written at Tuebingen or Basel in 1501, first
printed in the Margarita philosophica, at Strassburg in 1504
(one or two years before Reuchlin’s Rudimenta
Linguae Hebr.), recently discovered and republished by Nestle,
Tuebingen, 1877.

789 His knowledge of Hebrew
was unjustly depreciated by the Roman Catholic Richard Simon. But Dr.
Diestel, a most competent judge, ascribes to Calvin "a very solid
knowledge of Hebrew." See above, p. 276, and p. 525. Tholuck, also, in
his essay above quoted, asserts that "every glance at
Calvin’s Commentary on the Old Testament assures us
not only that he understood Hebrew, but that he had a very thorough
knowledge of this language." He mentions, by way of illustration, a
number of difficult Hebrew and Greek words which Calvin correctly
explains. He denies that he was dependent on
Pellican’s notes, as Semler had gratuitously
suggested.

790 He expresses his
estimate of the Fathers in the Preface to his Institutes as
follows: "Another calumny is their charging us with opposition to the
fathers; I mean the writers of the earlier and purer ages, as if those
writers were abettors of their impiety; whereas if the contest were to
be terminated by this authority, the victory in most parts of the
controversy, to speak in the most modest terms, would be on our side.
But though the writings of those fathers contain many wise and
excellent things, yet, in some respects, they have suffered the common
fate of mankind; these very dutiful children reverence only their
errors and mistakes, but their excellences they either overlook, or
conceal, or corrupt; so that it may be truly said to be their only
study to collect dross from the midst of gold. Then they overwhelm us
with senseless clamors, as despisers and enemies of the fathers. But we
do not hold them in such contempt, but that if it were consistent with
my present design, I could easily support by their suffrages most of
the sentiments that we now maintain. Yet, while we make use of their
writings, we always remember that ’All things are
ours’ to serve us, not to have dominion over us, and
that ’we are
Christ’s’ alone, and owe him
universal obedience. He who neglects this distinction will have nothing
decided in religion, since those holy men were ignorant of many things,
frequently at variance with each other and sometimes even inconsistent
with themselves." In the preface to his commentary on the Romans he
praises the Fathers for their pietas, eruditio, and
sanctimonia, and adds that their antiquity lent them such
authority, "ut nihil quod ab ipsis profectum sit, contemnere
debeamus." Compare with this judgment Luther’s
bolder and cruder opinions on the Fathers, quoted in vol. VI. 534
sqq.

791 In the dedicatory
preface to his Com. on Romans he reminds his friend Grynaeus of a
conversation they had three years previously, on the best method of
interpretation, when they agreed that the chief virtue of an
interpreter was "perspicua brevitas," and adds:, Et sane quum
hoc sit prope unicum illius officium, mentem scriptores, quem
explicandum sumpsit, patefacere: quantum ab ea lectores abducit,
tantundem a scopo suo aberrat, vel certe a suis finibus quodammodo
evagatur."

799 Older Lutheran divines
(even Walch, Biblioth. Theol. IV. 413) charged him with
Judaizing and Socinian misinterpretation of the O. T. proof texts for
the Trinity and the divinity of the Messiah. Aegidius Hunnius, in his
Calvinus Judaizans (Wittenberg, 1693), thought that Calvin ought
to have been burnt for his abominable perversion of the Scriptures. D.
Pareus of Heidelberg defended him against this charge in his
Orthodoxus Calvinus. Modern Lutheran exegesis fully sustains
him.

809 Luther said
substantially the same thing in his controversy with Eck: "The Church
cannot give any more authority or power to the Scripture than it has of
itself. A Council cannot make that to be Scripture which is not
Scripture by its own nature."